The Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority provides passenger and freight ferry service to the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. In 2018, the Steamship Authority suffered a series of mishaps including frequent mechanical breakdowns and a grounding. To address both the growing problems and the public's worsening perceptions, the Steamship Authority hired a management consultant firm to do a top to bottom review of their operations. In reading the somewhat scathing report, it struck me that the conclusions could apply to many organizations.

The management report concluded that the Steamship Authority's "penny pinching" practices prevented the organization from adding needed resources, particularly in management, forcing existing managers to perform multiple roles. Under-staffing is a common problem in many organizations, but I was surprised to read about a problem not typically thought of as a problem. The study found that many of the problems aboard the ferries could have been prevented if up-to-date policies and procedures were in place instead of relying so heavily on "institutional knowledge".

The study found that the experience of the crew was used as a substitute for ongoing training, and up-to-date protocols. Without a strategic plan in place to continuously train all employees (and document that training), the ability to respond appropriately to emergencies or unforeseen circumstances relied on just a few experienced employees with a high degree of institutional knowledge. That knowledge made those few employees adapt at putting out brush fires (little emergencies). But the report stated that the institutional knowledge did not provide those employees with the ability to prevent problems from occurring in the first place because neither the individual employees nor the organization did any advance or strategic planning.

The report also cited the fact that there was no employee performance expectations or a performance measurement system. As a result, a few hard-working employees (typically those with the institutional knowledge) spent an inordinate amount of time doing other employee's jobs. At the same time, management placed a premium on looking busy. This resulted in many employees looking busy but producing few results. The study also commented on how the look-busy-mindset resulted in employees being resistant to change. If an employee's focus is to look busy so as not to get in trouble, there is little need for results, little desire to change, and little incentive to be creative to find a better way to perform a task or complete a mission. It is like having some employees stuck in neutral with a few hard-working employees with institutional knowledge picking up their slack.

Prior to reading this report, I had always thought of institutional knowledge as something good. I have worked for, and had great respect for supervisors who had institutional knowledge. There is a great potential to learn from their experience. However institutional knowledge should not be a substitute for continuous training, cross training for different jobs, or protocols and planning to address problems (especially when the person with institutional knowledge is not present).

If you have developed institutional knowledge or an expertise in a particular area, both are good for your self-esteem. It makes us feel good to be able to quickly answer questions that few others can answer based on our institutional knowledge. That knowledge can be very helpful to the organization, and to the employees you supervise. But be aware of the fact that your institutional knowledge could make you a little more resistant to change or to new ideas. If "That's the way we've always done it." has become your mantra, know that institutional knowledge may be hindering your own continued improvement.


TIP: Institutional knowledge while useful, should not be a replacement for ongoing training (and cross training), or up-to-date policies and procedures.